Author Topic: On sede-agnosticism or doubtism (Read 2508 times)

Nishant · « **on:** October 13, 2016, 10:05:09 AM »

Agnosticism (A-gnosticism) means lack of knowledge or incertitude of truth. An agnostic is one who neither believes in God nor expressly denies the fact of His existence, but absurdly, claims to be in doubt over whether God exists (something He has revealed in creation itself with certitude) and thus lives like a practical atheist. Is this justifiable? By no means, St. Thomas says certitude belongs to the perfection of the intellect and God has revealed the truth we must know for our salvation and also by sending Christ His Son to found the Church has provided all the means we need to know the truth "with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error" (Vatican I, On Faith and Reason). And similarly sede-agnosticism or sede-doubtism professes to be uncertain or not know whether or not the See is occupied. Its most famous proponent on CI is Ladislaus.

Quote

But it's required that we believe in the legitimacy of a pope with the certainty of faith, since papal legitimacy is in the class of dogmatic fact ... I'm guessing that even Nishant would agree with me, right, Nishant?

1. The doctrine that Papal legitimacy (and a fortiori, the Ecuмenicity of a Council) is a dogmatic fact is not an argument in favor of doubt but rather against it. For, it is precisely that there be no doubt about a dogma defined by a particular Pontiff that the fact of his pontificate must itself be dogmatically certain. What is the use of the dogmatic fact if anyone can say, because he personally doubts the dogma of the Assumption, therefore he is justified in doubting the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, which some extreme sedevacantists in fact do? Like agnosticism in practice often reduces to sheer atheism, because it denies that man can attain to the knowledge of God with certainty (which is de fide, and easily provable by reason) so sede-agnosticism is simply an attempt to justify oneself remaining in doubt without resolving it by ignoring the means God has provided for us to be certain.

So what is sede-doubtism as defined by you, Ladislaus, is it a state of nescience, a professed uncertainty as to the fact of Papal succession looking for resolution either way? Is an agnostic historian who claims to be uncertain about the historical fact of Christ's Resurrection and the Church's divine origin justified in remaining in doubt? Why or why not? Neither are we justified in remaining in doubt about where Apostolic succession is continued, which the Fathers teach is a plain and evident fact by which all men in all ages can know the true Church with certainty.

2. We have to keep in mind the distinction between the epistemological and the ontological order, what is subjective and objective. Doubts do not exist in reality but only in the intellect, in the objective order, either the Pope is the Pope, or he isn't. If we lack certitude, then we should ask, like the agnostic historian should ask, what is the means that Almighty God, in His providence, has established for me to be certain? In the case of Christianity's divine origin, it is miracles and prophesies, as Vatican I says. In the case of identifying the true Church, it is the visible fact plainly evident to all of Apostolic and particularly Petrine succession. Once this Church has been identified by means of Apostolicity, we must ask who this Episcopal Body recognizes as Pope. The recognition of the other Successors of the Apostles is, in itself, a certain proof that a Successor of Peter exists.

So on what grounds do you affirm an individual layman, refusing the judgment of the entire episcopate who assures him day in and day out in the exercise of their ordinary teaching authority that we have a Pope, can still legitimately doubt whether a Successor of Peter has been elected. John of St. Thomas said it would be tantamount to heresy to deny the doctrine, even in principle, of universal acceptance providing infallible certitude of Papal legitimacy. Do you deny it even in principle, or do you only respectfully question its application to the post-Vatican II Popes, Ladislaus?

3. If the latter, can you please explain why you don't agree with this text, which Fr. Connell wrote in the AER in December 1965,

Quote

Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.

Arvinger · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2016, 10:21:12 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

So on what grounds do you affirm an individual layman, refusing the judgment of the entire episcopate who assures him day in and day out in the exercise of their ordinary teaching authority that we have a Pope, can still legitimately doubt whether a Successor of Peter has been elected. John of St. Thomas said it would be tantamount to heresy to deny the doctrine, even in principle, of universal acceptance providing infallible certitude of Papal legitimacy. Do you deny it even in principle, or do you only respectfully question its application to the post-Vatican II Popes, Ladislaus?

I think it comes back to what we talked about before. I don't think anyone here questions the doctrine universal acceptance as providing certainty of legitimacy of a Pope, rather I would argue that it did not happen with V2 claimants (at least from John Paul II onwards).

Look at it this way: majority of Catholics profess numerous heresies (82% of people who claim to be Catholics in the USA don't believe contraception is sinful, just to throw in one example) and knowingly deny Church's teaching in many areas (especially on sɛҳuąƖ morality), which makes them formal heretics. Countless others ceased to practice Catholicism at all. Thus, majority of nominal Catholics are in fact non-Catholics, thus their acceptance of Francis et al. is meaningless. As I said on another occasion, they would probably have no problem in accepting Obama as Pope.

How about those who actually hold the Catholic faith? Among the Novus Ordites it is not more then 20% (judging from various polls) and if you dig down deeper, it would be almost certainly much less. That suddenly makes Traditional Catholics a sizeable portion of those who profess the faith - and vast majority of Traditionalists either don't have certainty of faith about legitimacy of V2 Popes (like +Lefebvre, +Williamsson and others who admitted that the Chair of Peter might be vacant) and reject their Magisterium, or just straight reject them (sedeprivationists, sedevacantists). Add to this Siri theory, Antonio Socci's information about possible uncanonical election of Francis in his book Non e Francesco and you realize that among those who hold the Catholic faith there was no universal acceptance of V2 Popes at all (at least from John Paul II).

Thus, I think that universal acceptance argument simply does not work.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2016, 06:50:51 PM »

I'll come back to this thread soon. I've been very busy most of the day.

"Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church." (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicuм [Rome: Gregorian 1937])

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2016, 08:17:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You claim that a vacancy of the Holy See is tantamount to a defection of the Church but think that it's perfectly compatible with indefectibility to claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline have failed. Why bother with having a Holy See be occupied if this same See can lead the entire Church into error?

If Bergolio is a valid priest and Bishop, and the pope, he would be receiving the same Graces from God that were received St. Peter and all his successors. The Pope would have a "direct line" to God. That is a fact, and all the conciliar popes would have received all those graces. That being a fact, then EVERYTHING that we call heresy, that is everything the popes have done which is contrary to what was done before, are not errors or heresies, but the direct guidance from God. God wants ecuмenism, Assisi, easy annulments, NFP, Ostpolitik, New Mass, New Sacraments, Communion in the hand....
It is ALL of the Holy Ghost, and beyond our understanding.

It is either that the conciliar popes are valid popes and we are wrong in our concept of what tradition really is, or we are right about tradition and the conciliar popes are not popes at all.

Here's an encyclical by JPII which says just that, that we are wrong in our concept of tradition:

"ECCLESIA DEI" JOHN PAUL II, 2 July 1988

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circuмstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2016, 12:39:09 AM »

I will never, ever understand how someone on one hand can ask sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, or "sededoubists" by what authority they declare putative popes to be illegitimate, yet on the other hand declare by their own "authority" that the NOM created, promulgated, and offered by those same putative popes is illicit, invalid, and/or evil. (I know, I know: "It was never actually promulgated.") The message seems to be that private judgment is fine for R&R adherents but absolutely forbidden to sedes. It's pure hypocrisy.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2016, 06:05:46 AM »

I arrived at my position by a process of elimination. Basically, it's either this or there's nothing substantially wrong with Vatican II and the New Mass. I listen with an open mind to arguments made against R&R by the sedevacantists and to arguments made against sedevacantism by R&R. Both sides have many valid points. I am not interested in being in a camp, but only in the truth, so I readily admit the problems with both sides. Consequently, I ended up in my sede-doubtist position. I will detail how I got there later today when I have more time.

In your opening statement about agnosticism, you seem to be echoing Bishop Sanborn's "Opinionism" critique. What you both are missing is that there's certainty, and then there's certainty. But some things require not just natural/moral certainty but certainty of faith. Given the fact that we are navigating this crisis using our own lights and our own private judgment, we cannot have the certainty of faith regarding it. Now, dogmatic SVs like Bishop Sanborn claim that there is in fact certainty of faith regarding the vacancy of the Holy See. People like yourself assert that there's certainty of faith that the V2 Popes are legitimate. I disagree with both of these positions.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2016, 06:08:11 AM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

I will never, ever understand how someone on one hand can ask sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, or "sededoubists" by what authority they declare putative popes to be illegitimate, yet on the other hand declare by their own "authority" that the NOM created, promulgated, and offered by those same putative popes is illicit, invalid, and/or evil. (I know, I know: "It was never actually promulgated.") The message seems to be that private judgment is fine for R&R adherents but absolutely forbidden to sedes. It's pure hypocrisy.

Precisely. This is one of the many valid points that I considered in arriving at my position. Nishant always goes around saying that we must accept the judgment of the "Universal Church" (aka Conciliar Church) regarding papal legitimacy, but then thinks it's prefectly OK to reject the Magisterium and Unviersal Discipline of that same Church. Suddenly, in the latter case, we need NOT accept the judgment of the Universal (aka Conciliar) Church. That's always been my criticism of Nishant's position.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2016, 08:04:02 AM »

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2016, 08:36:50 AM »

The GLARING inconsistencies of the Remnant/Catholic Family types (and why I don't take them seriously)

1) Every bishop and priest is fair game to be called an apostate or heretic and criticized, but when he becomes the pope and teaches the same things, he can't be wrong because he is guaranteed indefectability:

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
Can you please tell us what "nations" are in apostasy

I gave you my answer, Germany.

Quote
and how they differ from the hierarchy in Rome

Simple, the hierarchy in Rome is guaranteed indefectibility while that in Germany is not.

Of course, not a thought is given to the FACT that the same indefectable popes are in fact defectable and thus must not be popes at all. The defectables are swept under the table, ignored, forgotten, rationalized (it's just material heresy)......

2) The Catholic Church, which is Christ, can never lead souls to hell, the conciliar church is leading souls to hell (it is undeniable now 50+ years into it), but the post Vatican II popes and Roman hierarchy are indefectable and thus can't lead souls to hell:

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote from: Stubborn

The Catholic Church, which is Christ, can never lead souls to hell.

Is the conciliar church the Catholic Church? has not the conciliar church led souls to hell?

Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification
Balamand Accord
Assisi
Hindus, Muslims, Jєωs..... need not convert
Easy annulments (adultery)
Removing Catholicism as country's religion (opening the flood gates of Protestantism in Latin America)
Permitting forced sex education in Catholic schools

No, the conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

Histrionics · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2016, 03:52:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I arrived at my position by a process of elimination. Basically, it's either this or there's nothing substantially wrong with Vatican II and the New Mass. I listen with an open mind to arguments made against R&R by the sedevacantists and to arguments made against sedevacantism by R&R. Both sides have many valid points. I am not interested in being in a camp, but only in the truth, so I readily admit the problems with both sides. Consequently, I ended up in my sede-doubtist position. I will detail how I got there later today when I have more time.

In your opening statement about agnosticism, you seem to be echoing Bishop Sanborn's "Opinionism" critique. What you both are missing is that there's certainty, and then there's certainty. But some things require not just natural/moral certainty but certainty of faith. Given the fact that we are navigating this crisis using our own lights and our own private judgment, we cannot have the certainty of faith regarding it. Now, dogmatic SVs like Bishop Sanborn claim that there is in fact certainty of faith regarding the vacancy of the Holy See. People like yourself assert that there's certainty of faith that the V2 Popes are legitimate. I disagree with both of these positions.

Am very interested in hearing the rest of your story, as it were; have run through the gamut of both camps myself, and as you've stated both have serious problems. R&R in no way submits to Bergoglio despite the lip service, his canonizations, the Church's universal discipline, etc., making a mockery of the indefectibility they endeavor to defend; on the other hand while it's becoming more mainstream to question Bergoglio's legitimacy, his predecessors (referring to John XIII-Benedict XVI specifically) sure seemed to have been acclaimed as popes by the universal Church, and to dismiss this as simply other heretics in communion with a heretic is not only a weak argument, it creates other serious issues from the aforementioned doctrine of universal acceptance, the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome, the seeming disappearance of the teaching Church, etc.

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** October 17, 2016, 10:56:52 AM »

Arvinger,

Quote

I don't think anyone here questions the doctrine universal acceptance as providing certainty of legitimacy of a Pope, rather I would argue that it did not happen with V2 claimants (at least from John Paul II onwards)

But that's already too late for sedevacantism to work. It would follow that the Ecuмenicity of Vatican II is a dogmatic fact from the universal acceptance Pope Paul VI had in 1965. Also, with regard to later Popes, the acceptance of the Ecclesia Docens is sufficient. Do you believe the hierarchical episcopate, with moral unanimity, did not recognize Pope Francis as the Pope after his election and up to this moment?

Quote from: Ladislaus

In your opening statement about agnosticism, you seem to be echoing Bishop Sanborn's "Opinionism" critique. What you both are missing is that there's certainty, and then there's certainty. But some things require not just natural/moral certainty but certainty of faith. Given the fact that we are navigating this crisis using our own lights and our own private judgment, we cannot have the certainty of faith regarding it.

1. No, I don't agree with what Sanborn claimed, - the CE says "the certainty of faith can be obtained only from the authority of the "teaching Church". Does Bp. Sanborn identify the teaching Church and derive his certainty from Her authority? Do you agree with this statement in the CE? I will briefly mention the patristic method of identifying the true Church in a subsequent post.

2. Please answer the other questions, "What is the use of the dogmatic fact if anyone can say, because he personally doubts the dogma of the Assumption, therefore he is justified in doubting the pontificate of Pope Pius XII"? You've noticed yourself this would lead to an absurd loop where any man, on the basis of his own opinions, could effectively depose a Pope if there were not a prior infallible guarantee of the fact of his election. How do we know with infallible certitude that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God is in heaven? We know it through the authority of the teaching Church. The Church exists so that man may not doubt, but know the truth with certainty, the Catechism of Trent states "faith necessarily excludes ... all doubt". Please read the CE article on Certitude.

3. The quote you provide from Wernz Vidal says a man is not a schismatic even if he is objectively mistaken about the identity of the Pope. No problem, I agree. The same authors say, "Acceptance by the Church is not the cause, but the sign and infallible effect of a valid election" And for the simple faithful, Fr. Sylvester Hunter, in Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, states all that is necessary to know the truth with certainty, "It is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the Body of the Bishops would be separated from their Head and the divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." It is enough, as lay faithful, for us to follow this simple rule.

P.S. I am not a Molinist, GJC and I think you know that despite your unwarranted assertion about me. If you want to start a thread about Thomism vs Molinism, I'll be happy to answer you there.

Nishant · « **Reply #11 on:** October 17, 2016, 11:06:45 AM »

There are 3 traditional Catholic positions, first of all (1)Sedevacantist/sededoubtist (2) The Resistance, as in not wanting canonical regularization by the Roman authorities and an (3) SSPX/Indult traditional apostolate in canonical communion with Rome. The third position is often treated as if it didn't exist whereas, especially with Bp. Fellays' clear recent strides in that direction, it is now, if anything, the largest group of the 3 among all professing traditional Catholics. It is also the most consistent position and one which begins first in the way the Fathers unanimously teach we must identify the Church. There are tens of thousands of sects that claim to be the true church of Christ - How can any Catholic have infallible certitude where the true Church is? All the Fathers answer, the mark of unbroken Apostolic succession in episcopal sees from the Apostolic age to the present - this alone disqualifies all the Protestant sects together, as all Catholics have always known (even though the suggestion that the Church - especially the Ecclesia Docens - is identified by Her Apostolicity is treated with horror sometimes here, as if it were an unthinkable novelty!) In particular, it is enough to demonstrate the principal or Petrine Succession in the Holy Roman Church as the pinnacle of all Apostolic Churches, which was founded by Jesus Christ Our Lord 2000 years ago through Saints Peter and Paul.

The Holy Roman Church, says Dom Gueranger, is that city set on a hill that cannot be hid, of which Christ the Lord speaks in the Gospel. This is the method followed by St. Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses, he speaks of the "very great, the very ancient, the universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul ...it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority ... The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric ... Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate." Brunsmann Preuss say expressly, "In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter." and Tertullian issues this challenge to the heretical sects "Prove the origin of your churches. Make us see that the order of your bishops has in some way through succession descended from the beginning". St. Anthony Mary Claret says, "Inasmuch as the heretical sects will never be able to show this, so it is that none of them can reasonably glory in being Apostolic. But on the other hand, since the Catholic Church is the only one that is able to trace Her origin to the Apostles, it follows from what I have said that She alone is in all truth Apostolic." This suffices to exclude all doubt as to where Apostolic authority has been transmitted and where the teaching Church (the Ecclesia Docens) exists today.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #12 on:** October 17, 2016, 11:58:39 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

(3) SSPX/Indult traditional apostolate in canonical communion with Rome.

Of course, not a thought is given to the FACT that the same indefectable popes are in fact defectable and thus must not be popes at all. The defectables are swept under the table, ignored, forgotten, rationalized (it's just material heresy)......

Quote from: Last Tradhican

The GLARING inconsistencies of the Remnant/Catholic Family types (and why I don't take them seriously)

1) Every bishop and priest is fair game to be called an apostate or heretic and criticized, but when he becomes the pope and teaches the same things, he can't be wrong because he is guaranteed indefectability:

Quote from: Nishant
Quote
Can you please tell us what "nations" are in apostasy

I gave you my answer, Germany.

Quote
and how they differ from the hierarchy in Rome

Simple, the hierarchy in Rome is guaranteed indefectibility while that in Germany is not.

Of course, not a thought is given to the FACT that the same indefectable popes are in fact defectable and thus must not be popes at all. The defectables are swept under the table, ignored, forgotten, rationalized (it's just material heresy)......

2) The Catholic Church, which is Christ, can never lead souls to hell, the conciliar church is leading souls to hell (it is undeniable now 50+ years into it), but the post Vatican II popes and Roman hierarchy are indefectable and thus can't lead souls to hell:

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote from: Stubborn

The Catholic Church, which is Christ, can never lead souls to hell.

Is the conciliar church the Catholic Church? has not the conciliar church led souls to hell?

Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification
Balamand Accord
Assisi
Hindus, Muslims, Jєωs..... need not convert
Easy annulments (adultery)
Removing Catholicism as country's religion (opening the flood gates of Protestantism in Latin America)
Permitting forced sex education in Catholic schools

No, the conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #13 on:** October 17, 2016, 12:26:46 PM »

No need to write so much Mr. Nishant, all you have to say is that your position is the same as Bishop Rifan 16 years ago.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #14 on:** October 17, 2016, 12:55:04 PM »

I think we all agree that Emmanuel Milingo is NOT a successor of the apostles today. Nishant would say he ceased to be a successor of the apostles when he resigned from his office as Archbishop of Lusaka, Zambia in 1983. But sedevacantists would say that he was never a successor of the apostles or if he was a successor he most certainly defected from the Catholic faith during the 1970s. So who is right? Nishant would point to JP2's decision in 1983 as the dogmatic fact that establishes the truth of his position. Well, we are still in the crisis and there is certainly the possibility that a future truly Catholic and holy pope makes a determination that Paul VI was not a true pope. That would be the dogmatic fact that establishes the truth, not the ruling of a non-Catholic claimant to the papacy. Nishant is forgetting that apostolicity has multiple aspects, one of which is apostolicity of doctrine. Clearly, the claimants that Nishant is putting forth do not have apostolicity of doctrine even by his own past admissions. Therefore, they are not true apostolic successors. This will be confirmed not by sedevacantists in the midst of the current crisis but by a true Catholic pope. So I agree with Nishant when he quotes Catholic theologians but I disagree with Nishant's application of the teaching.